This is the forum dedicated to all 'minor' local psyops - phony murders, kidnappings and whatnot. It has now become evident that the news media constantly feeds the public with entirely fake stories - in order to keep us in eternal fear of our next-door neighbours and fellow citizens.

- the reporter says that the woman who is later kidnapped in front of the cathedral, is walking across the square. The problem is, is that that 1st woman has a white plastic bag and no red handbag and the 'kidnapped' woman has the opposite items.- why would the vicsim woman want to cover her face??- why would she -understandably- fight and struggle, but with that red handbag inconveniently hanging on her arm?- the cut between the overview shot and the zoomed in one shows heavy editing- the 'homeless hero' is 'shot' in the chest, yet has no problem standing up (before 'dying')- the left arm of the 'kidnapper' is behaving unnaturally- why would there be a drone hanging there, filming?- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rRVe77JFJ48 , in this clip at 1:50 we see the 'kidnapper' switching hands for the gun and it almost seems the woman is helping him with that action...? - also here we see that while the police is shooting (?) the 'kidnapper', the 'homeless hero' is standing next to him like nothing happened with the wound in his chest?- the sound in that clip is blocked, but in this low quality 'amateur' VVS* clip we can hear 19-20 shots before the 'homeless hero' has moved away from the light-coloured façade of the cathedral: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=8WN4IyyM9P8

This stinks like Paulista favelas to me. Am I wrong?

Is the 'hero hoax' the new 2015 theme?- the Malinese woman (?) @ the jewish supermarket in Paris (Hebdo hoax)- the US military 'heros' on the Thalys- this 'homeless hero hoax'?

* VVS = Vertical Video Syndrome

Selene

PS: The 'full story':

A hostage situation ended in a deadly shootout on the steps of Sao Paulo’s landmark cathedral on Friday. A gunman killed a homeless man who tried to rescue a female hostage and was later shot dead by police.

“They [man and hostage] entered and spent some time [in the church]. They seemed to be arguing… She wanted to leave. He grabbed her arm. They then left the church and he assaulted her,” cathedral security guard Joao Nascimento told Folha de S. Paulo newspaper.

Erasmo Francisco Rodrigues de Lima, 61, tried to intervene in the incident, which led to a scuffle between the two. Silva then pulled out a gun and shot Lima dead in front of crowd of onlookers. “An armed criminal targeted a victim and announced a hold-up. A passer-by saw what was happening and on intervening, was injured by shots fired by the criminal. The passer-by died at the scene,” the official police report said, as quoted by Metro UK. The hostage, who was injured, received medical attention at the scene. RT

I agree with your other observations, but I don't see the woman helping him.-the "criminal" retrieves his gun just in time before being attacked-at 2:50 the "homeless man" stops his attack, giving the "criminal" time to get a grip on his gun and shoot him-the blood on the homeless man's chest only appears after his hands and chest were blocked from view by the "criminal"-the homeless guy was now somehow in control, forcing the criminal in a sitting position. At this moment the police starts firing, risking to hit the homeless man.-at 3:00 after the criminal touches his leg with his hand, he suddenly has a trail of blood from his socks to his knee. This is the only blood we see on him.-the criminal never hurts the "victim"-Homeless man calmly moves cigarette from his hand to his mouth before grabbing criminal.

From the bottom of my heart - I will ask everyone to finally wake up to this fact:

WHY is this so hard to understand?

You''ve gotta love how the "bad guy" magically extracts a revolver from his formerly empty right hand (and just after being violently flung down by surprise by the 'heroic man') - and fires a shot in about 0.2 seconds ! That's faster than the legendary "Billy the Kid"!

CGI I don't know. If you take a still from a video it can be that you get artefacts like this with moving objects (his knee). If you watch the video I don't see it as CGI, it more looks like bad acting on those stairs in front of the cathedral in the São Paulo metropole (~22 million people).

I saw a similar comment on Edward Snowden. If you watch the (bad!) documentary Citizenfour (Oscar-winning, but why??) you clearly see that Snowden is a real person, no matter if Snowden is his real name or that he would be a real whistleblower (with you and the others here I don't believe that).

Point is that it's pretty hard to take stills from a video and on that basis call it CGI, imho. The screen cap function by itself creates too many artefacts to say that with 100% certainty.

What is also strange of the 'brutal Brazil crime' is that we see so many people filming (VVS ) on the left side where the videos are all from an angle on the right side.

Point is that it's pretty hard to take stills from a video and on that basis call it CGI, imho. The screen cap function by itself creates too many artefacts to say that with 100% certainty.

I agree that "CGI" is a hard call. Video editing and photographic manipulation can do the same things.

As for detecting all of them, I think it depends what tools you are using. Yes, if you are doing analysis on a toy like an iPad, and not spending any time scanning for problems, it might be trickier, and you may sort of fall behind.

Then, it's even safer to assume fakery in news stories given all the instances which I think we've proved. However, if you don't wish to learn from all those instances and you'd like to believe the technology will just get worse and scarce rather than better and more ubiquitous, it's your mistake. (Not saying you are doing this! Just generally speaking.)

But I think a more important point is that even on such a device you can train your eyes to pick up on traces of all the effects technology out there — at the very least, the software that is publicly available. And you should if you are interested in being useful to this kind of research.

On the other hand, point taken. We ought to be as careful about our terminology as we are with our observations.

I see your points hoi, and I know many people on Cluesforum are living by that adagium; assume something is fake and maybe it's not. I choose not to live like that. In principle my position with these media reports is a neutral yet suspicious one. A sheeple position would be to assume everything is right, unless... which is not how I think either.

Also the difference between suspicion and paranoia is very important to me. It's also a self-protecting mechanism; others will use a "you don't believe anything anymore" attitude as a weapon against you. I saw that happening in the Costa Concordia topic where fbenarios position from day 1 was "boat is fake". That standpoint (fbenarios other points were very good in that topic) was only proven false by simons and Heywas fieldtrip, in my opinion and experience the very best way to deal with these things, if possible of course.

I see other topics along similar lines; vaccinations, AIDS, Ebola, etc. I will never claim those are fake/do not work, as I am not able to study the viruses/effectiveness of vaccines under a microscope and thousands of serious scientists do and I cannot call them all liars, fakers, perpetrators, etc. a priori; without knowing them or their work. I take their analyses seriously but see the media hyping around it. It would be more of a case of hyped or propagandised reality, like I see the refugee and "refugee" "crisis" now played out in the media in Europe.

A different video on the Brazil 'shooting' is this one:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83y-NqnlX6Y

- it says "HD", but that is only the case for the last part of the video; the drone camera. The VVS -finally angle from the left- video is definitely not HD and the filmed from TV second part also not obviously.- in the last drone video part 2 new things appeared to me:1 - the man/woman sitting quietly on the stairs just to the right of the cathedral entrance, walking away like nothing is going on in the background, just meters behind that person??2 - the behaviour of the 'victim', the woman with the red handbag. She runs down the stairs (differently than in the videos filmed from the right or is that a camera angle problem?) towards and behind the parked van on the left. Only after a while -and not immediately!- someone is asking her "how are you" (or at least it looks like it), by the guy with the red loose hanging backpack (around 4:45). That seems very unnatural, not only from a social point of view (knowing Brazil a bit) but also from a medical "maybe she needs immediate medical assistance" point of view. You see her going back and watching the scenes taking place after she ran off. Looks unnatural.

Naturally, we are quite aware of the tendencies of people to believe stories.

The significance of our site, for many, has been to singularly represent the idea that people have the right to doubt. We have also given more than ample evidence that the media companies have lost the former privilege they had of being generally trustworthy. Paranoia has nothing to do with it, and your use of the word is slightly offensive — akin to "conspiracy theorist".

Let us not now pretend we don't know there is a very limited number of sources, from which all our major news stories come from. Let us not pretend to forget the obvious collusion between Associated Press, Reuters and the military — even if we do not yet understand its nature.

As long as we respect that, even the things we do believe in will make more sense when we explain them.

hoi.polloi wrote:Naturally, we are quite aware of the tendencies of people to believe stories.

The significance of our site, for many, has been to singularly represent the idea that people have the right to doubt. We have also given more than ample evidence that the media companies have lost the former privilege they had of being generally trustworthy. Paranoia has nothing to do with it, and your use of the word is slightly offensive — akin to "conspiracy theorist".

I used it deliberately in the sense pointing at myself. I am not calling anyone here paranoid, so it's not meant to offend anyone here. But yes, I see it a lot with people interested in the Brave New World we're living in (people who are labeled "conspiracy theorist"). And I consider it an unhealthy way of living.

Let us not now pretend we don't know there is a very limited number of sources, from which all our major news stories come from. Let us not pretend to forget the obvious collusion between Associated Press, Reuters and the military — even if we do not yet understand its nature.

As long as we respect that, even the things we do believe in will make more sense when we explain them.

I appreciate your detailed response. Thanks.

Alright, and very much agreed. The media (hoaxes) are the easiest victims (not; vicsims, as they are real). The stories are so ridiculous that it doesn't take much effort to point out the flaws.

My position on the media hoaxes after investigation then becomes: "I don't know what happened or what's the truth/real story, but at least the 'official version' or stories that we are told cannot be true".

- it says "HD", but that is only the case for the last part of the video; the drone camera. The VVS -finally angle from the left- video is definitely not HD and the filmed from TV second part also not obviously.

Interesting video. In the foreground, you can see a man in a red jacket approaching very calmly from about the same spot as the homeless man. He is interested in the action, but shows no emotion. He has a rolled up piece of paper in his hand that he uses to give clear signals. First signal: 3 seconds before first shot from "criminal" is heard"Second signal (wave): just before the police stops firing.Third signal (wave): just before the police runs to the criminal.Some moments later, he walks away.Interestingly in the "drone video" (here around 3:20) this man is nowhere to be seen.One of the first "civilians" approaching the dead criminal has a sweater with horizontal blue and white stripes. 1 policeman as well. The sound from the criminals gun is not synchronized with the image (could be due to distance).Edit: Could a moderator move this to a new topic (for future Brazilian readers)?

Strange how, at 2:43 the person runs from left to right as if they are running in front of the TV you are watching, it definitely looks staged.The plaza [or whatever it's called] is deserted, then, as if on cue, the man in the blue coat walks on from bottom right towards upper left of the screen at 2:54, hurrying a bit just in case he misses his line in the show [I presume it's the same man who 'tackled' the shooter?].Then at 3:25 the 'audience' is allowed into the plaza, closer to the 'action', with many of them camera-phones in hand 'filming' the incident!. Also the drone zooms out from the 'action' to show the crowd closing in, which seems contrary to having the drone there in the first place to see the 'action'.Plus i don't know many people, if any, who would willing close in on an armed hostage situation [as if they would be allowed especially as a police car is visible at the bottom left of the screen when the drone pans], even though they are shown to be running scared when shots are fired...Very bizzare and staged-looking.

pov603 wrote:Strange how, at 2:43 the person runs from left to right as if they are running in front of the TV you are watching, it definitely looks staged.The plaza [or whatever it's called] is deserted, then, as if on cue, the man in the blue coat walks on from bottom right towards upper left of the screen at 2:54, hurrying a bit just in case he misses his line in the show [I presume it's the same man who 'tackled' the shooter?].

I agree, it appears to be the same man.

pov603 wrote:Then at 3:25 the 'audience' is allowed into the plaza, closer to the 'action', with many of them camera-phones in hand 'filming' the incident!. Also the drone zooms out from the 'action' to show the crowd closing in, which seems contrary to having the drone there in the first place to see the 'action'.Plus i don't know many people, if any, who would willing close in on an armed hostage situation [as if they would be allowed especially as a police car is visible at the bottom left of the screen when the drone pans]

And showing 2 policemen ducking behind their car hundreds of metres from the "dead criminal", contrasting the attitude of the other people.

pov603 wrote:, even though they are shown to be running scared when shots are fired...Very bizzare and staged-looking.

This is a longer version of the best quality video:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweoqolaxdMAs you can see in the still above, around 1:37, after playing dead for 30 seconds, the criminal makes a big movement with his left arm. 2 cops pay some attention, but seconds later they turn their backs to him. The cameraman is also not interested, switching quickly to the homeless man.Has anybody seen an ambulance or any medical personnel? oops!

Selene wrote:- the 'homeless hero' is 'shot' in the chest, yet has no problem standing up (before 'dying')

Well, not exactly, Selene - the 'homeless hero' is actually MEANT to have been shot twice in the face:

As we can see / hear in the below video (first 38 seconds), the two first gunshots we hear are meant to be from the 'bad guy's' revolver - as he fires twice at the 'homeless hero's' face. Soon after, about 20 shots are heard - supposedly from the police forces (the sounds / timbres / loudness of the various firearms are, incredibly enough, pretty much identical) :

(Watch / listen at first 38 seconds of video):

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83y-NqnlX6Y

Now, I would like you to pay attention to this "mother and child" seen walking towards the very loud shooting scene:^ The above instant corresponds approximately to the start of the police shoot-out ^

Here follows a long gif depicting the 'key moments of the event' - as allegedly recorded by the "drone" ( imagine that: by 'chance', a camera drone "just happened" to fly in the area - and captured THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - including the arrival of 'homeless hero' to the cathedral square, as he strolls into the foreground of the 'drone camera view' - thanks, pov603, good eyes!) !

Well, you will see "mother and child" appearing at bottom centre - and walking all the way up towards the shooting scene, without ever stepping back - or even the slightest hesitation even as the shoot-out begins (too bad that the 'drone video' is soundless...) :

My point being: even if you are inclined to believe that these videos are real /as in 'real imagery captured at a staged event' - I think we can firmly conclude that NO REAL SHOOTING took place on that Sao Paolo cathedral square.

*********And just for the record, once again we've got the usual / dreary psyop-tell-tale signs - well-known to Cluesforum readers...